War, Moral Principles, and Contemporary Conflicts
Introduction
War presents profound moral challenges, forcing a
confrontation with the limits of human reason and conscience. The Catholic
Church offers a moral framework rooted in the intrinsic dignity of every human
person and the immutable moral law, even in the chaos of conflict. This essay
applies these enduring principles to two contentious military episodes of the
modern era: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and Israel’s
military campaign in Gaza following Hamas’s attack in October 2023. While the
bombings on Japan represent a clear case of intrinsic evil under Catholic
doctrine, the Gaza conflict illustrates the complexities of just war reasoning.
By engaging these cases, the Church’s moral vision offers guidance on the
ethical boundaries of warfare and the responsibilities of combatants to justice
and human dignity.
Catholic Teaching on Moral Acts and War
Catholic moral theology teaches that the morality of any
human act depends on three essential components: the object chosen (what
is done), the intention behind the act (why it is done), and the circumstances
surrounding it, including consequences [1]. The object is decisive: some acts
are intrinsically evil; wrong by their very nature, regardless of good
intentions or outcomes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
states clearly:
“One may not do evil so that good
may result from it.” [2]
“There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and
intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object.” [3]
In warfare, this principle demands discrimination: non-combatants
must never be deliberately targeted; and proportionality; the harm
inflicted must not exceed the good sought [4]. Acts that deliberately kill
innocent civilians are intrinsically evil and cannot be justified by appealing
to beneficial consequences [5].
Why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings Constitute
Intrinsic Evil
It is often noted that President Truman’s intention
in authorizing the atomic bombings was to save American lives and shock Japan
into surrender, thereby hastening the end of a brutal war. This intention, to
avoid a prolonged invasion and mass casualties, is morally understandable and
in a certain sense praiseworthy.
However, Catholic moral theology carefully distinguishes the
object of an act (what is done) from its intention (why it is
done). While good intentions merit moral respect, they cannot justify an
intrinsically evil object. The object of the bombings was the deliberate
destruction of entire cities and the mass killing of innocent civilians. Such
an act is gravely immoral by its very nature and cannot be licit simply because
the intention was to bring peace:
The principle of discrimination, central to just war
teaching, is violated when entire civilian populations are intentionally
targeted or their deaths disregarded. The bombings’ object was the display of
the ability to cause mass destruction and this included civilian slaughter,
which is intrinsically evil regardless of any beneficial intention to end the
war swiftly.
“Every act of war directed to the
indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants
is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal
condemnation.” [6]
Thus, while Truman’s intention was to save lives and
restore peace, the object chosen, dropping nuclear bombs on civilian
populations, remains intrinsically immoral and cannot be justified by appealing
to hoped-for good consequences.
Consequentialism and Its Rejection in Catholic Ethics
The argument that the bombings were morally justifiable
because they prevented even greater loss of life by averting an invasion
projected to cause millions of casualties, is a classic consequentialist claim.
Such reasoning judges acts by their outcomes alone.
Saint John Paul II addressed this in Veritatis Splendor:
“There exist acts which per se
and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong
by reason of their object; such acts admit of no morally acceptable intention
or circumstance.” [8]
The bombings fall under this prohibition. The Church rejects
consequentialism in matters involving intrinsic evil, preserving the sanctity
of moral absolutes and human dignity.
Legitimate Defense and the Boundaries of Just War
Catholic doctrine permits the use of lethal force in
defense, but strictly within limits:
- Proportionality:
Harm must not exceed the good sought.
- Discrimination:
Non-combatants must never be deliberately targeted [9].
The atomic bombings fail the test of discrimination because
their design directly targeted civilians to force surrender. The means were
intrinsically evil and cannot be redeemed by strategic necessity.
Historical Development of Church Teaching Post-1945
The devastation wrought by nuclear weapons impelled the
Church to clarify its moral teaching on warfare:
- Pope
Pius XII warned against “catastrophic weapons,” emphasizing moral
responsibility amid new technology [10].
- Vatican
II’s Gaudium et Spes (1965) condemned indiscriminate attacks on
civilians as “a crime against God and man” [6].
- Saint
John Paul II acknowledged nuclear deterrence only as a regrettable
temporary measure, advocating disarmament and protecting innocent life
[11].
- Pope
Benedict XVI highlighted the grave consequences of nuclear war and urged
abolition [12].
- Pope
Francis, visiting Hiroshima in 2019, called the use and possession of
nuclear weapons “immoral,” urging global disarmament [13].
This development reflects a consistent magisterial effort to
uphold moral absolutes in the face of evolving warfare.
6. Israel’s War in Gaza: Complexities and Moral
Challenges
Israel’s military response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023
attacks presents a more complex moral scenario. Hamas’s brutal offensive - mass
missile launches, killings, kidnappings - was itself gravely immoral [14].
Israel’s declared war aim, from the outset under Prime Minister Netanyahu, was
the total destruction of Hamas as a political and military entity [15].
The Gaza conflict, however, is marked by difficult moral
ambiguities:
- Hamas
operates within civilian populations, uses human shields, and denies clear
separation between combatants and non-combatants [16].
- Gaza’s
dense population makes civilian casualties almost inevitable, raising
grave concerns about proportionality and discrimination.
- Israel’s
military strategy aims to minimize civilian harm, but the scale of
destruction and displacement tests the limits of just war criteria.
Catholic teaching permits defensive war under conditions of
just cause, legitimate authority, proportionality, discrimination, and
reasonable prospects of success [17]. Israel’s campaign meets some but arguably
not all of these, particularly as the humanitarian toll rises and the
feasibility of totally eliminating Hamas without disproportionate civilian harm
remains uncertain.
Comparative Moral Reflection
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent a
morally clear violation of Catholic teaching: the intentional mass killing of
civilians is intrinsically evil, with no justification through good intention
or consequence.
The Gaza conflict underscores the moral complexity of modern
asymmetric warfare. While Israel’s right to self-defence is legitimate, and
Hamas’s aggression unequivocally evil, the methods employed must constantly be
evaluated against the demands of proportionality and discrimination.
Conclusion
War’s horrors call forth the highest demands of moral
discernment. Catholic teaching affirms that no good intention can justify
intrinsically evil acts such as deliberately targeting innocent civilians. The
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as solemn reminders of this truth.
Contemporary conflicts like Israel’s war in Gaza reveal the
profound difficulties in applying just war principles amidst irregular warfare
and urban combat. Yet, these challenges do not suspend moral law; rather, they
call for greater vigilance, restraint, and commitment to peace.
Ultimately, the Church’s call remains clear: to uphold the
dignity of every human life, to reject any act that treats innocents as mere
instruments, and to pursue peace with justice and charity.
References
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed.
(Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 1750.
[2] Ibid., 1789.
[3] Ibid., 1756.
[4] Ibid., 2307–2313.
[5] Ibid., 2314.
[6] Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes (1965), 80.
[7] Josh Hammer, “America Must Never Apologize for Dropping the Bombs on
Japan,” The American Spectator, August 7, 2025, https://spectator.org/america-must-never-apologize-for-dropping-the-bombs-on-japan/.
[8] John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, 80.
The nuclear bombing of Japan is not licit because it was intended to bring peace. To make that claim is misrepresenting it by abstracting out important detail.
ReplyDeleteIt is licit because it ended a war which, had it continued, would have taken far more lives. Further, in demonstrating a will to use such weapons and the horrors they inflict, the USA has created an era of peace from worldwide conflicts. Mutually assured destruction is the ultimate earthly reason to live at peace.
The Divine solution works well among people of shared Christian faith, but those are few, and the Divine ultimate solution, which remains on the horizon, involves the destruction of many evildoers.
The bombings intentionally targeted non-combatants. It was also unnecessary, as Japan was militarily on its knees (particularly with the involvement of the USSR in the war: see the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in August), and the surrender could have been obtained with a few more months of blockades and conventional bombing. It was a war crime.
DeleteChef, your argument reflects a common reasoning: that the atomic bombings were justified because they ended the war swiftly, spared greater loss of life, and established a deterrence that has preserved relative peace among great powers. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, this seems compelling. However, from a moral perspective, the legitimacy of an act depends not only on its consequences but also on its intrinsic nature.
DeleteThe central problem is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply attacks on military installations with civilian casualties as an unintended side effect. They were deliberate and direct targeting of entire civilian populations. This makes them examples of intrinsically evil acts - actions that are always wrong regardless of intention or outcome because they involve the direct killing of innocents.
This is not negated by the fact that the bombings may have shortened the war or deterred future conflicts. The moral object of the act - what was chosen - was gravely disordered, even if the intention (ending the war, saving lives) was good.
Regarding deterrence and “Mutually Assured Destruction,” nuclear deterrence is a temporary, conditional measure, but the arms race does not ensure peace but aggravates the causes of war. Peace built on fear is fragile and morally insufficient.
Finally, the analogy to God’s ultimate judgment does not parallel human warfare. Divine justice involves omniscience, perfect moral authority, and the right to judge all creation; qualities no human government possesses. The moral constraints placed on human action are precisely because we do not share those attributes, and our judgments are clouded by partial knowledge, fear, and political expediency.
Thus, while we can acknowledge the historical context, the urgency to end the war, and the subsequent geopolitical deterrence, the deliberate incineration of civilian populations cannot be morally justified. The horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be reinterpreted as a legitimate precedent, but as a warning to never cross certain moral lines, even under extreme pressure.
I do not agree with the assertion that, in a war, knowingly killing civilians is necessarily morally wrong.
DeleteThroughout history, when a nation goes to war, it has done so with all of its resources and at the risk of all of its people. Japan, in particular, was itself merciless towards its enemies and deeply treacherous in the way it entered the war. The blood of the victims in Japanese society is on the hands of Japan's leaders, not those who defended themselves.
Yes, Japan’s leaders bear enormous blame for starting the war and the suffering that followed. But the key question is: does that automatically make it moral to deliberately target civilians? If we say “yes,” then by the same logic, Japan’s bombing of civilian cities or Germany’s Blitz would also be morally fine, because they too were at war and thought it necessary.
DeleteMoral responsibility for a war’s crimes can’t be transferred wholesale to every man, woman, and child in the enemy nation. Otherwise, total war would always be justified.
Defending yourself is just; using means like directly aiming at civilian populations is not. That’s why Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a moral warning, not a model.
Once you accept that any civilian population is fair game in war, there’s no moral limit left. The standard of “whatever ends the war fastest” justifies any atrocity. If you think Hiroshima was justified, you have to explain what principle stops you from also justifying every other deliberate attack on civilians by anyone.
I do not agree with the assertion that, in a war, knowingly killing civilians is necessarily morally wrong.
DeleteOn what basis?
Throughout history, when a nation goes to war, it has done so with all of its resources and at the risk of all of its people.
This is simply an argument from assertion. It provides no moral justification.
Japan, in particular, was itself merciless towards its enemies and deeply treacherous in the way it entered the war.
Japan entered the war as part of its drive to expand its empire. In other words, it was doing what has been allowed - and indeed celebrated - for western countries for centuries. Would you then agree that British imperialism was a moral evil, and that a nuclear strike against London would have been justified when Britain invaded India?
The blood of the victims in Japanese society is on the hands of Japan's leaders, not those who defended themselves.
So wrote Bin Laden in his Letter to America.
I think that, if one's religion morally permits the immolation of children, one has chosen poorly.
Japan's leadership and culture were morally deficient and consequently brought destruction on themselves. As did Germany. Thank God it was that way around, rather than them ruling us.
DeleteGod would've spared Sodom if ten righteous adult males could be found. They could not be found and so the entire population perished. It's not wrong to plead like Abraham, but there's little to be gained from moralizing retrospectively. It's war and there is much suffering on both sides, in which the non-combatants always have their share. If you shoot a soldier you leave his child fatherless. In these circumstances neat theological lines cannot be drawn by humans to say one thing is moral and another is immoral. But thank God that he is the judge of all the earth and will do right.
Yes, war is messy, and civilians always suffer. But there’s still a moral difference between harm that’s an unintended side-effect of attacking a military target, and harm that’s the direct goal of the attack. Hiroshima wasn’t “soldiers happened to die and civilians got caught in the crossfire.” It was “we’re going to obliterate the city itself to make a political point.”
DeleteIf we erase that distinction, then there’s nothing left to stop any nation from justifying the deliberate killing of civilians whenever it’s convenient. That’s not moralising in hindsight, it’s about whether there’s any line worth keeping in human warfare at all.
Yes, Japan’s militarist leadership in the 1930s/40s was profoundly morally corrupt. They committed atrocities and pursued aggressive conquest. In the Christian worldview, moral corruption on that scale can and often does lead to destruction, but that doesn’t mean that any method of destruction is therefore justified. God has the right to judge nations as He wills; human governments do not have carte blanche to take God’s place.
God had the right to judge Sodom. He’s God, perfectly just and perfectly holy. But the USA isn’t God, and no nation today is sinless enough to stand in His place. When human governments start acting as if they can be the hand of divine judgment, they risk becoming Sodom themselves. Human leaders are finite, fallen, and prone to self-interest. That’s why Christian just war teaching insists that even in the face of an evil enemy, the means used must still respect moral law. A war may be just in cause but unjust in conduct. The fact that an enemy’s leadership “brought destruction on themselves” does not automatically sanctify how that destruction is delivered.
Sorry, Chef, but that's sophistry. 'Trust that God will work it all out in the end' just allows us to bury our heads in the sand, shrug away holocausts and atrocities, and absolves us of making any moral judgements whatsoever. And by that reasoning, there was no need to attack Japan anyway, since God would judge them later.
DeleteGod didn't drop bombs on Japan, so the story of Sodom - historicity aside - is irrelevant here.
Lain, the fire bombing of Tokyo killed an estimated 90 to 100k. Conventional bombing isn't a more moral option. If you believe conventional bombing is allowed, really there is no argument against using the two bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
DeleteRegards
Clive
In both cases people die horribly.
DeleteThe Japanese government failed in their duty of care with regards the civilian population. They knew following the Tokyo bombing that the Americans would bomb again. At this stage there was no consensus for surrender. So another 90 to 100 k would die. A price the Japanese government was willing to pay.
How is it that the moral blame for this doesn't sit squarely with the Japanese government, but needs to be shared with the allies.
The Japanese government’s refusal to surrender was a grave moral failure; a dereliction of its duty to protect its people. They bear responsibility for prolonging the war and for the deaths that came from that choice.
DeleteBut the wrongdoing of one party never justifies intrinsically evil acts by another.
Think of it this way: if an enemy commits atrocities, we may be justified in defending ourselves, even with lethal force, but not by deliberately targeting the innocent. The “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities” is a crime against God and man, no matter the strategic situation.
This is why the moral blame is not “shared” in a proportional, 50–50 way - it’s distinct: Japan’s leaders were culpable for unjustly prolonging the war. The Allies were culpable for choosing a means of ending the war that deliberately killed large numbers of civilians.
Each is morally responsible for their own choices, regardless of the other’s guilt. “They did it first” or “they were worse” is not a moral defence for intrinsically evil means.
Japan’s government gravely failed its people by refusing to surrender. The atomic bombings were intrinsically wrong because they intentionally destroyed civilian populations. That’s not moral equivalence — it’s moral consistency.
The inconsistency I am interested in an explanation for, is Lains comment that the allies were wrong to use the nuclear bomb because it could continue to use conventional bombing. As conventional bombing led to 90 to 100k deaths in one night of bombing Tokyo, why is this better than the nuclear bomb? When you're being incinerated alive why would that be morally better if it was conventional?
DeleteI understand the RC position on how the evil of one side doesn't justify the evil of another. I remember this being argued on the old Cranmer site. Carl has very clear views. Me less so today. You can't but read of the suffering of both the German and Japanese populations and not feel a moral uncertainty as to it's justification.
Yes, I meant conventional warfare, rather than bombing. The incendiary bombing of Tokyo was also immoral (as were the German air raids, the carpet bombing of Dresden) since they were specifically intended to target civilians in order to destroy civilian morale and force the leadership to capitulate. The involvement of the USSR in the war would have led to Japan's surrender in a few months, and so the bombs were entirely unnecessary; and, one can't help but think, more of a show of American might for the USSR's benefit, and a chance to test two types of experimental ordinance (as both bombs were different).
DeleteThe atomic bombing epitomised what the whole war had normalised: the inversion of the rules of warfare (and conventional morality) to legitimise targeting innocents. This cannot be a Christian position. It is entirely utilitarian (one 'goodies' life is worth more than - what, 10, 100 'baddies'?), and I think that we can draw a straight line between carpet bombing and atomic bombs, and the modern attitude that lives which are inconvenient or have served their purpose are disposable.
In Shakespeare's Henry V, when the French attack the English luggage train and non-combatants, we are supposed to be outraged:
'Kill the poys and the luggage! 'tis expressly against the law of arms: 'tis as arrant a piece of knavery, mark you now, as can be offer't; in your conscience, now, is it not?'
And yet, when this is done on an unimaginable scale, it's fine because two wrongs make a right, if we're the good guys.
If an armed robber takes refuge at home with his children, it isn't moral for the police to roll out a tank and flatten the house, just because the blame is on the robber. As I've already mentioned, Bin Laden used the same justification for attacking the twin towers: 'Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.' Thus, the death of thousands of American civilians was, to his mind, justified because of American aggression towards Islamic countries.
I don't think that intentionally bombing civilians en masse is ever morally grey; I think it is 'as arrant a piece of knavery as can be offer't'. I do not see any Christian argument to the contrary without rejecting the core of the Gospel, which is perhaps why its apologists have to resort to misappropriating OT judgement texts.
This distinction between 'combatants' and 'civilians'.
DeleteOn what scriptural and moral authority is it made and by whom?
A nation gives succour to its soldiers in a multitude of ways. A soldier fights for his family. Is it not the nature of war that everyone is a combatant?
Again, if your religion can't morally differentiate between a solider and a baby, you might want to rethink your choices. For clarity: bayoneting babies - moral or not?
DeleteIs it not the nature of war that everyone is a combatant?
No. Clearly not.
For clarity, bayoneting anyone is undesirable. What exactly makes it more acceptable to bayonet an adult than a baby?
DeleteI wondered why you might hijack an discussion about nuclear weapons and take it down the line of bayonets? There is only one army which regularly bayonetted babies and that was of course the Japanese army before and during World War 2. The truth still isn't on the Japanese school history curriculum. The nation remains in denial, preferring to paint itself as the victim. But there is an element of natural justice in the fact that such a vicious, inhumane culture, responsible for many many deaths of innocent children, should have been on the receiving end of the bomb called Little Boy.
DeleteWhat exactly makes it more acceptable to bayonet an adult than a baby?
DeleteI said a soldier and a baby. Are you seriously saying you see no moral difference?
I wondered why you might hijack an discussion about nuclear weapons and take it down the line of bayonets?
Because you were struggling with the difference between combatants and non-combatants. I thought an extreme example might make this clear to you, but it seems not.
There is only one army which regularly bayonetted babies and that was of course the Japanese army before and during World War 2.
Well, isn't everyone a combatant?
I give you that it's less inventive than firing on crowds of unarmed protesting civilians, or making foreigners crawl on the road when you walk by, or cannoning prisoners, or putting women and children in disease ridden concentration camps, or exporting the little food produced by a starving country for your own profit...
You have yet to identify the dividing line between combatants and non-combatants, who defined it and on what authority. You simply ask me whether I see no moral difference. The fact is I don't. Not when a nation goes to war and kills the babies of its enemy. Children grow up and in a culture and become combatants all too soon, replicating the atrocities of their parents. Sometimes a culture is best eradicated, or dealt a blow so severe that it is forced to face it's failures and change.
DeleteThe idea that it’s acceptable to kill enemy children because they might one day become combatants directly contradicts God’s justice. Scripture consistently distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent (Ezekiel 18:20), and nowhere does God give fallen human nations the authority to pre-emptively kill innocents on the assumption of future sin. The line between combatants and non-combatants isn’t man-made sentimentality, it’s rooted in the biblical truth that each person is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and that “hands that shed innocent blood” are detestable to Him (Proverbs 6:17). Once we accept collective punishment as moral, we justify the very atrocities we condemn in our enemies. America is not God, and it has no mandate to act as if it were.
DeleteAnd there we have it. Chef sees no difference between killing an enemy solider and a baby. That which is a problem should simply be eradicated (ever the cry of the eugenicist and abortionist).
DeleteJust as Jesus said: 'you have heard it said, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." But I tell you, if someone strikes you, take not just an eye, but their neighbours' eyes, and their children, too. Incinerate their babies while you're at it, it's all good. Morals don't apply in war.'
Gadjo struggles to get past the first couple of sentences here, and didn't read much more. Where was the Catholic Church's "moral framework rooted in the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the immutable moral law" when they were burning people at the stake who didn't agree with them? The victims were presumably considered, at best, acceptable collateral damage, standing in the way of the greater good of Roman Catholic advancement, or, at worst, not actually having any "intrinsic dignity" at all.
ReplyDeleteCatholics, including Church leaders, have committed grave errors in history. The Inquisition, the burning of heretics, and other abuses were wrong, sometimes defended with theological explanations. These episodes are not denied; the Church has publicly repented for them.
DeletePope John Paul II, in the Day of Pardon liturgy of 2000, confessed before the world that “Christians have violated the Gospel” and asked forgiveness for “methods of intolerance and violence” used in the service of truth. Pope Benedict XVI has likewise acknowledged that the Church’s past actions sometimes “contradicted the Gospel” and that this is a cause for humility and repentance.
But the key point, the moral framework you mention, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the truth that some acts are intrinsically evil, does not originate in our moral perfection. It originates in God’s revelation and natural law. Human sin (including sins by popes or bishops) does not invalidate the moral law; it shows how desperately we need it.
We can condemn the burning of heretics and also condemn the bombing of civilian cities, for the same reason: they deny the inherent dignity of the human person. The Church has learned, through centuries of reflection, to articulate these principles more clearly.
The fact that the Church’s members have failed to live up to this standard in the past doesn’t weaken the principle - it strengthens the argument that moral law must be applied consistently, even when it’s inconvenient, even when it means questioning the victors in war.
Where was the Catholic Church's "moral framework rooted in the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the immutable moral law" when they were burning people at the stake who didn't agree with them?
DeleteProbably in the same place as the Protestant moral framework when they were burning people at the stake who didn't agree with them.
If you wish to discount everything that a hypocrite has said, your reading list will be very short.
@HJ,
DeleteAbsolutely, and those proclamations you mention from popes JPII and Benedict were 2 good days' work that they acheived, among many. This is worthwhile and fruitful discussion, involving the pronouncements of Scripture and of any given church body seeking to find moral a framework to the most "challenging" of situations.
I have found thinking about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki very disturbing, and I cannot come up with a clear answer.
ReplyDeleteHowever, referring to Gaza, this situation is contemporary and surrounded by the fog of war. There are some fundamental flaws in the Arab narrative. Looking at the latest situation, one of the Al-Jazeera “journalists” has been exposed as a senior Hamas operative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0HuX7sQQE
Question . Has Japanese cruel culture changed now? If it has how did that occur. Maybe culture is intrinsic and it takes centuries to change. I don't know. Is there a significant presence of Christianity in Japan now. There is a parallell between Hamas and the Japanese gov of WW2. Both were and are prepared to sacrifice their people no matter the cost to gain success. How do those populations feel about this? .....Cressida
ReplyDeleteThis might help towards an answer:
DeleteHow Japanese People Came to Hate Religions | Let's ask Shogo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJmWVWCdTYo
Japanese culture undertook a huge shift after WW2, and the abolishment of the samurai class etc. It became far more passive, hence the rise of 'kawaii culture' and disbanding the armed forces to replace them with defence forces.
DeleteChristians currently represent around 1% of Japan's population. Catholicism had been flourishing in Japan until it was banned in 1612, partly due to Dutch Protestants convincing the Shogunate that a foreign religion was a threat to Japanese culture (as part of the Dutch trade war with the Portuguese).
After Japan (was forced to) reopen to the West, the largest concentration of underground Christians was in Nagasaki, where St. Francis Xavier founded a mission in 1549. By 1917, the Catholic community - now worshipping openly - had built St. Mary's Cathedral in the Urakami River district of Nagasaki. Two-thirds of Japan's Christians lived in Nagasaki.
At 11.02am on 9 August 1945, the United States (arguably the most explicitly Christian nation on earth) dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. As an identifiable landmark, they chose the cathedral to be ground zero for the bombing. The bomb exploded 500m above the cathedral. That day was the Feast of the Assumption of the BVM, and the faithful were gathered for Mass. Six thousand died instantly, including all those making confession. Of the 12,000 church members, 8,500 died as a result of the bombing. Three orders of nuns and a Catholic girls school were obliterated.
Japanese Christianity has never recovered. As someone pointed out, Japan's Imperial government could not wipe out Christianity in 250 years. America managed it in nine seconds.
On the Spectator website, Adrian Hilton aka Archbishop Cranmer introduces the concept of "censory smearing". "Censory" is certainly a well-coined word, but in this case an alternative label might be "censory deprivation": the censor's intention is to deprive his victim of the opportunity to state his case.
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.ph/b0Wwn